Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[pastafarian]

The notion of every other war that has declared it will have targeted bombing, we have already killed individuals in Syria with drones without the vote in parliament.

Targeted mistakes only six weeks ago

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-20-years-we-wont-get-such-a-hospital-again

i dont disagree, even targeted drops can be dangerous for civilians,however my point was who has proposed indiscriminate bombing as some are mentioning. I have heard no one in gov/military circles proposing this strategy for the RAF at all.

 

[peterward]

...

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Lets say for the sake of argument IS are starved of funding,support and military arms.

These measures alone will not make them go away.The final defeat of this deathcult will only come about by the use of military options,of which airstrikes are an important part.
Any diplomacy will never involve IS

Read the bleeding articles, no one but the people on here advocating bombing are talking about talking to ISIS. Have the Taliban or al queda gone away from being bombed into the rat holes or back into society, no, have they become irrelevant like Facist and Communist death pots due to funding and working with groups around them, yes,did anyone negotiate with them, not really. Bombing rarely does anything but ruin peoples lives and creates groups that have justification of their terrible causes.

 

[glasfryn]

David Cameron has told Tory MPs not to side with Jeremy Corbyn and "a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" ahead of the vote on UK airstrikes in Syria.

http://news.sky.com/story/1597886/cameron-attacks-terrorist-sympathiser-mps

said this two pages back
no comments from those who want to go headlong into war
also said this was from a man who cannot even keep our own borders safe

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

i dont disagree, even targeted drops can be dangerous for civilians,however my point was who has proposed indiscriminate bombing as some are mentioning. I have heard no one in gov/military circles proposing this strategy for the RAF at all.

But the article, if you read it, is about a targeted bombing that destroyed a hospital, by mistake, bombing is bombing and kills people good and bad. The US said it wouldn't happen again. The US military initially conceded only that their airstrike might have caused “collateral damage” to the hospital. The top commander in Afghanistan, John F Campbell, later admitted – in the fourth attempt at explaining the devastating attack – that the hospital was “mistakenly struck”. 22 dead including weston volunteer doctors.

 

[LlcoolJ]

The idea that "the West" is more powerful and can sort this out because...er.. weapons is quite quaint.

Russia's support of Assad is the main reason it's quite cheap to fill your car up at the moment.

 

[pastafarian]

Read the bleeding articles, no one but the people on here advocating bombing are talking about talking to ISIS. Have the Taliban or al queda gone away from being bombed into the rat holes or back into society, no, have they become irrelevant like Facist and Communist death pots due to funding and working with groups around them, yes,did anyone negotiate with them, not really. Bombing rarely does anything but ruin peoples lives and creates groups that have justification of their terrible causes.

well i am in favour of extending the current RAF strategy in Iraq onto Syria.
i remain unconvinced that the current RAF strategy is going to be changed to indiscriminate bombing in civilian areas

 

[1066familyman]

Really? Then on an individual level they would have no sense of self preservation which is unlikely there not all committed suicide bombers after all. As an organisation which you are probably referring to you would need to believe their propaganda or analysis that suggests they welcome foreign intervention to fuel their cause.

Does any group trying to establish total control and domination over an area really want it's enemies to have complete air superiority? They would have rolled into Baghdad but Airstrikes slowed them down while the Iraqi army re discovered a spine.

Foreign intervention is fulfillment of prophecy to them, and they have no concept of self preservation on an individual basis it would appear...all are very happy to die for the cause. But you're right, they do require territory. In fact they needed to control territory in the first place to set up the caliphate (they now control an area larger than the UK) and they now see themselves as duty bound to keep expanding that territory.

I think you'd find the article I posted a really interesting read. I won't patronise you by suggesting you might change your mind about military intervention after reading it because there really are no simple answers, but it does give plenty of food for thought.

 

[pastafarian]

But the article, if you read it, is about a targeted bombing that destroyed a hospital, by mistake, bombing is bombing and kills people good and bad. The US said it wouldn't happen again. The US military initially conceded only that their airstrike might have caused “collateral damage” to the hospital. The top commander in Afghanistan, John F Campbell, later admitted – in the fourth attempt at explaining the devastating attack – that the hospital was “mistakenly struck”. 22 dead including weston volunteer doctors.

Yes i did read it and im well aware of the incident.

I have much more faith in the RAF,the checks and measures put in place and the intelligence gathered before any mission is signed off on than US forces.

The vote is on our role out there,i feel confident the RAF can continue the good work they have done in Iraq in the last year

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

well i am in favour of extending the current RAF strategy in Iraq onto Syria.
i remain unconvinced that the current RAF strategy is going to be changed to indiscriminate bombing in civilian areas

Well Raqqua has a population the size of Brighton and Hove, imagine the leaders of the council were being targeted by Tornedo jets everyday and we did not support them, but they all live amongst us and we are bound by their draconian ideas that we should carry on our lives as normal. I trust the military forces will not kill anyone but the bad people of Brighton.

Just type in will bombing Raqqua kill civilians you will see plenty of personal testimony from people that live there that are not IS (and risk their lives - many have been killed) for posting online. If they cannot persue you about the futility of bombing now, then I certainly can't,

 

[LlcoolJ]

Yes i did read it and im well aware of the incident.

I have much more faith in the RAF,the checks and measures put in place and the intelligence gathered before any mission is signed off on than US forces.

The vote is on our role out there,i feel confident the RAF can continue the good work they have done in Iraq in the last year

What do you think it will actually achieve though? "Collateral damage" (dead children, women, innocent men) aside. If you've read the articles and still believe this is a sensible course of action then I despair.

It won't do any good so what's the point?

 

[pastafarian]

Well Raqqua has a population the size of Brighton and Hove, imagine the leaders of the council were being targeted by Tornedo jets everyday and we did not support them, but they all live amongst us and we are bound by their draconian ideas that we should carry on our lives as normal. I trust the military forces will not kill anyone but the bad people of Brighton.

Just type in will bombing Raqqua kill civilians you will see plenty of personal testimony from people that live there that are not IS (and risk their lives - many have been killed) for posting online. If they cannot persue you about the futility of bombing now, then I certainly can't,

Jihaddi John was targeted and killed right in the centre of Raqqua,no civilians were killed.

As i said until someone can persuade me that this sort of targeting attack strategy is going to dropped in favour of a more indiscriminate bombing strategy i cant see myself changing my mind

 

[LlcoolJ]

Jihaddi John was targeted and killed right in the centre of Raqqua,no civilians were killed.

And that has changed what exactly?

 

[symyjym]

said this two pages back
no comments from those who want to go headlong into war
also said this was from a man who cannot even keep our own borders safe

What this shows is that he is willing to say anything to get his way. It makes all his accusing Assad of being a brutal dictator narrative just warmongering rhetoric.

I would be happy for Cameron to swap places with Assad and let him sort this out on Syrian soil. He may prefer to work with the Syrian army rather than Al-Nusra if put on the spot, and I am sure he would make up his mind fairly quickly if he was.

He couldn't organise a pi55 up in a brewery.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well Raqqua has a population the size of Brighton and Hove, imagine the leaders of the council were being targeted by Tornedo jets everyday and we did not support them, but they all live amongst us and we are bound by their draconian ideas that we should carry on our lives as normal. I trust the military forces will not kill anyone but the bad people of Brighton.

Following your logic we should not have bombed the Germans stationed in occupied countries in most of Europe then. How do you know many innocent people in Raqqa don't see the jets flying overhead as their only sign that anyone is fighting and killing these sadists?

 

[pastafarian]

And that has changed what exactly?

he is no longer chopping off peoples heads for starters

everytime one of these loons is taken out of the equation is a win.......we just need many more wins.

 

[symyjym]

 

[LlcoolJ]

he is no longer chopping off peoples heads for starters

everytime one of these loons is taken out of the equation is a win.......we just need many more wins.

Every time one is taken out by Western military strikes it strengthens them. It's about ideology not killing individuals FFS.

 

[pastafarian]

Every time one is taken out by Western military strikes it strengthens them. It's about ideology not killing individuals FFS.

I have heard the terrorists claim this plenty of times,doesnt make it true though.

its not very easy to promote an ideology when all those promoting it are dead and scattered into little bits

 

[Tarpon]

its not pleasant, agreed, but imagine having corbyn suddenly opposite you and the potential for him to scupper serious decisions, it must seem like madness to have dave spart suddenly appear on the front bench and have real influence like some sort of bad dream where everyones gone mad.

Yes I feel dreadfully for the PM, poor chap: totally understandable. After all, the democratic requirement to engage with the official political opposition (particularly when it suggests an alternative approach to an issue which appears to resonate with some of the public) must be an extremely tiresome distraction from his job of making serious decisions on behalf of the nation.

Luckily for us, our PM's decision making appears carefully considered, well planned and faultless (unlike the other chap) so any risks are in reality tiny. Although the PM may show some mild irritation from time to time when these facts are not universally accepted, his unbridled confidence in his own judgement is unlikely to be shaken.

The bad dreams you refer to are only dreams. Sleep well my friend - you are in safe hands.